Two posters for your bedroom wall. Click on each picture to see a larger picture.Click here to download a PDF Poster of the illustration from the Greens Transport and Policing Policy, and here for a PDF Poster of the cover page from Michael Cullen's notes on Labour's Student Loans Policy .
Enjoy.
6 comments:
This is hypocritical to the point of comedy.
So, Don Brash lied by not telling the whole truth about the smear campaign (audio), over and over again, then later revealed that he endorsed the campaign, then on TV adamantly claimed that he didn't lie about it, hiding behing words - including later on that day in the Leader's debate, then apologised for lying about it?
Which party had their leader called a liar by a prominent radio host?
Instead, you try to brand Labour as a liar, despite this incident being covered all over the NZ blogosphere as being "optimistic", but not actually a lie.
Sadly, I fear your delusion is contagious.
"I fear your delusion is contagious."
I fear that it is a lie when the optimism is both flagrantly unwarranted, and knowingly unjustified, and intentionally deceitful. That, my friend, is a lie.
But you'll find I have no problem criticising Don either.
No hypocrisy here, Sam. How about you? Can you criticise Helen?
Sorry PC but I just had to GIMP one of these. Hope it is an improvement.
http://whaleoil.blogspot.com/2005/09/sir-humphreys-and-pc-at-it-again.html
Sure, I can criticise Helen, too.
For a start, sending in our elite force to Iraq while maintaining a hard anti-war public stance was hypocritical.
She also has not placed enough pressure on China and other countries such as Thailand to end their Human Rights abuses before negotiating a Fair Trade Agreement.
No, I don't think that Helen Clark is the best leader possible for this country. However, out of the two on display I will side with common opinion that on balance, Helen is the better leader by far.
I have already stated elsewhere that in my opinion, the assumptions that were made should have been more transparent. But what good would this do without requiring that the opposition submit to an equivalent level of inspection?
You are using the argument;
1. the estimates were unreasonable because of an opinion on the nature of people commonly held by economists
2. because that opinion must be correct, Cullen's decision to look at relevant historical cases and ask the economists to re-prepare their costing based on this, made it a lie.
This simply does not hold water.
Perhaps you should also consider that Michael Cullen and Helen Clark both looked the public in the eye and said 1)Treasury had not costed their policy, so therefore,
2)No Treasury papers on their student loans policy existed.
Following Wednesday's disclosure those statements are now revealed as: 1) a lie, and 2) another lie. Looks like that nose is getting bigger.
If you have to lie in order to make your point, it seems to me that it's a point that shouldn't be made.
PC, that is new information to me, though as I understand it they were using Treasury for expert advice and not for formal cost analysis - thought that almost sounds as shallow as Don Brash's refusal claims that he didn't lie. I will investigate further.
It is rather rude to assume that someone is deliberately misrepresenting information rather than simply unaware of it all. Is this really how you want your blog to be carried on? Be rude to people with contrary opinions until they get fed up and stop arguing?
"Courtesy towards opponents and eagerness to understand their view-point is the ABC of non-violence."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
Post a Comment